Skip to main content
Glama

TestChimp

by io.testchimp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mark Tests For Review

mark-tests-for-review

Report existing SmartTests that an agent patched so humans can re-verify. Always send per-test confidence 0–100 (higher = less need for human review). Do not read project config. Call only from fix-test-execution after test-incorrect patches (never from run-qa / create-tests; never for product-broken cases). Optional agentTraceability / workflowExecutionId / gitCommitSha / branchName.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoQA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.
testsYes
gitShaNo
userIdNo
actorTypeNo
agentModelNo
branchNameNo
cliVersionNo
policyFileNo
workflowIdNo
gitCommitShaNo
skillVersionNo
policyVersionNo
projectApiKeyNoQA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.
agentTraceabilityNo
workflowExecutionIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / botId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectApiKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with no destructive hint. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the meaning of per-test confidence (0-100, higher = less human review needed) and the instruction not to read project config. It stops short of describing what the review record persists or its lifecycle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, then the confidence rule, then call-site constraints, then the optional fields. Four tight sentences with no padding or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 16-param nested tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, the key parameter's semantics, and strict invocation constraints. It omits return/confirmation behavior and leaves many secondary params undocumented, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 13% across 16 parameters (nested objects), so the description must carry weight. It clarifies the critical 'confidence' semantics and names four optional traceability fields, but the bulk of parameters (botId, actorType, skillVersion, etc.) are left to the schema. Partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: report existing SmartTests that an agent patched for human re-verification. An agent can tell this writes review flags for patched tests. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the close sibling list-tests-awaiting-verification, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: 'Call only from fix-test-execution after test-incorrect patches (never from run-qa / create-tests; never for product-broken cases).' It names both the required caller context and the forbidden scenarios/alternatives, which is exactly what routing guidance should do.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TestChimp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources